Heirs of Salvador Hermosilla vs.

Spouses Remoquillo
G.R. No. 167320, January 20, 2007
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FACTS:
The subject property is a 65 sq.m. lot located in the San Pedro Tunasan Homesite.
This Homesite was acquired by the Republic of the Philippines in 1931. Apolinario Hermosilla
(Apolinario) was occupying a lot in such homesite until his death in 1964. He caused the
subdivision of the lots into two, Lot 12 and Lot 19, with the same area of 341 sq. m. The 65
sq.m. subject of this controversy forms part of Lot 19.
In 1962, Apolinario made a deed of assignment transferring possession of Lot 19
in favor of his grandson, Jaime Remoquillo. The Land Tenure Administration later found that
Lot 19 is still available for qualified applicants. Jaime, being its occupant filed an application
in 1963.
On that same year, Apolinario conveyed Lot 12 to his son Salvador. He filed for an
application to purchase the said lot, which the LTA granted in 1971.
In 1972, Jaime and Salvador made a Kasunduan whereby Jaime transferred
ownership of the 65 sq.m. in Lot 19 in favor of Salvador. In 1986, the NHA (then LTA)
awarded Lot 19 to Jaime, for which he and his wife were issued a title.
The petitioners filed for the annulment of the title on the ground of fraud because
by the virtue of the Kasunduan, the 65 sq.m. in Lot 19 were already conveyed to Salvador.
The trial court held that the petitioners were co-owners of the subject property
and allowed for the action for specific performance. The CA reversed the trial court’s
decision, rendering the Kasunduan void because at the time of its execution (1972), the lot
was still owned by the Republic of the Philippines. Hence, no right was transferred to Jaime,
who was awarded the lot in 1986 and no right was transferred by Salvador to the
petitioners. Also, the CA held that the action had prescribed, it having been filed in 1992,
more than four years from the issuance of the title to the spouses Remoquillo.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the property was acquired by the spouses Remoquillo through
fraud which by force of law, considered them trustees of an implied trusts
(2) Whether or not the prescriptive period to recover the property obtained by
fraud is applicable in the case at bar
HELD:
(1) NO. The property was previously a public land, petitioners have no personality to
impute fraud or misrepresentation against the State or violation of the law. If the
title was in fact fraudulently obtained, it is the State which should file the suit to
recover the property through the Office of the Solicitor General. The title
originated from a grant by the government, hence, its cancellation is a matter
between the grantor and the grantee.
At all events, for an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, the
petitioners must prove by clear and convincing evidence not only his title to the
property but also the fact of fraud. Fraud is never presumed. Intentional acts to
deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner injure him must be
specifically alleged and proved by the petitioners by clear and convincing
evidence. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden, however.

(2) NO. From the allegations of the Complaint, petitioners seek the reconveyance of
the property based on implied trust. The prescriptive period for the reconveyance
of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of
the issuance of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession, but
imprescriptible if he is in possession of the property.
It is undisputed that petitioners’ houses occupy the questioned property and that
respondents have not been in possession thereof. Since there was no actual need
to reconvey the property as petitioners remained in possession thereof, the action
took the nature of a suit for quieting of title, it having been filed to enforce an
alleged implied trust after Jaime refused to segregate title over Lot 19.One who is
in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may
wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to
vindicate his right. From the body of the complaint, this type of action denotes
imprescriptibility.